Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 55 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,079
@530,055 (D)
I dont think that people with genetic issues should breed.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,087
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/) @530,062 (E)
It's all well and good fantasising about purifying the gene pool, but banning people from having kids is wrong. A disturbing affront to personal freedom and a bad precedent. It's their choice if they want to go ahead with it, and there's no telling how the child will ultimately turn out.
And why the hell shouldn't this particular woman not have a child, anyway? All that was irregular with her was that she lacked reproductive organs. Okay, that problem was obviously overcome. It's a complete non-issue.
Meta joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,088
@530,079 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Considering she was born without ovaries, I would assume the egg was donated by someone with more X chromosomes so she had no genetic input in the baby.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 38 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,092
@530,087 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
People have too many freedoms regarding procreation, to the detriment of society.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 37 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,093
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,095
@530,087 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
This is what liberals actually believe.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,096
@530,092 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Oh, well then, we just need to remove these undesirables and society will be better. Because that always goes so well.
So, tell me, are you in favour of forced sterilisation? Forced abortions?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,099
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I am in favor of both.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 59 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,111
@530,077 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Good to know you are as sensible as always.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,115
Meta replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,116
@530,099 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Under what circumstances?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,118
@previous (Meta)
Forced sterilization:
1. If you're convicted of severe child abuse or neglect.
2. If you're convicted of murder.
3. If you abuse hard drugs or alcohol resulting in birth defects in an earlier pregnancy.
4. If you were convicted of facilitating murder, or severe child abuse or neglect.
5. If you have severe genetic deformities or mental illnesses.
6. If you have produced multiple children who are later found to have severe genetic disorders or mental illnesses.
6. If you have been convicted of commiting a war crime.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,121
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
What about black welfare queens who have many children to many different absent fathers?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,124
@previous (H)
Skin color is irrelevant.
You would have to look at these factors:
1.Employment status of both parents.
2. Reasons for/length of joblessness
3.Any disabilities
Yes, I would have forced sterilization for some of these cases. For both parents.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 34 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,125
whoa whoa whoa, you can't just go around sterilizing people over genetic deformities and disabilities. it is highly likely that malformations are a heavy driver of evolution in species. Specifically chromosomal abnormalities that occur during conception are possibly major contributors to cladogenesis.
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.
So if we ever want to evolve into the species humans will eventually evolve into we're going to require a little stirring of the pot.
conditions like Down's Syndrome may seem like terrible "diseases" but it's actually our chromosomes attempting major, major reconfigurations of genes, and it's not impossible that one day millions of years ago Homo Habilis had a retarded little baby that looked and acted all downsy to them but was actually the first genetically modern Homo Sapien.
So let's not go the route of attempting to engineer our way out of retards, it'll be autistics and downsy tards that evolve us into human calculators with photographic memories and shit.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,131
@previous (squeegee)
You have a very good point. Can we at least sterilize the abusers?
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,133
@530,125 (squeegee)
I think the US army already has a breeding program for that tard strength and mentality in the southern states.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#530,144
> was told she would never have children > no reproductive organs > has given birth to twin girls > after IVF treatment using an egg donor > IVF treatment using an egg donor
she cheated
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,162
@530,095 (G)
Yes, because not wanting to forcibly sterilise people is an exclusively liberal idea.
@530,131 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
"Abusers"? You think that being abusive is a purely genetic thing? It's a bit more complex than that, upbringing and environment play a massive role in how people develop in terms of how they behave, and how any genre of theirs are applied.
If you want to curb abuse or other bad behaviours, that's great, but the way to do it is through social efforts. You can't just go sterilising any abusers in a clumsy attempt to stamp out that behaviour, it won't work.
You yourself even agreed that being a psychopath wasn't necesarily bad, well, neither are any genes that might predispose anyone to aggressive or unruly behaviour. They can be applied in positive ways.
Meta replied with this 11 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,277
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
The war crimes thing gets me. I can't think of any war criminals whose parents were war criminals. Most of the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Saddam, etc, etc, all had normal parents and upbringings.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,279
@previous (Meta)
Right, same for Mao. These people can come from pretty much any parentage. If you could see them coming via their parents, you'd think there wouldn't be so many of them.
There is no feasible way of isolating and eradicating some fabled "war criminal gene". Such a thing probably doesn't even exist.
@530,162 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
*any genes of theirs
Their genres are probably slightly less important.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,286
> The war crimes thing gets me. I can't think of any war criminals whose parents were war criminals. Most of the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Saddam, etc, etc, all had normal parents and upbringings.
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14–20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse, and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days.
The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.
The results of the experiment favor situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution (a result caused by internal characteristics). In other words, it seemed that the situation, rather than their individual personalities, caused the participants' behavior. Under this interpretation, the results are compatible with the results of the Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be agonizing and dangerous electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.
literally anyone can become a war criminal under the right conditions. It's not about the individual, but the group.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,336
@530,162 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
By committing those types of acts, they prove that they cannot properly raise children.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,337
@530,277 (Meta)
I dont think that war criminals should have children because they are mentally unwell, not because their children would be born evil.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,338
@530,336 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
If a government has a war criminal in a position where sterilisation is possible, I am somewhat doubtful that said war criminal would be allowed to raise a child anyway. Because they would be in prison.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,340
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Some people get pregnant/fertilize others while incarcerated. Also, they may not have life imprisonment.
If someone cant raise a child, than they dont need to produce children.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,343
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/) > Some people get pregnant/fertilize others while incarcerated. Also, they may not have life imprisonment.
Irrelevant. Even if it's not life, the child is presumably in decent care whilst the bad parent is in prison.
> If someone cant raise a child, than they dont need to produce children.
Good thing social services is around to monitor that stuff, then.
Hey, don't you think that the judging on "who is fit to raise a child" might be a little... Subjective? What if a person becomes "unfit" after having a kid? Or manages to change their ways, and become a good citizen?
In theory, it has some merit, but it simply wouldn't work well in practice, to say nothing of the issues of morality and judgement.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,347
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If they become unfit after having children, they would be sterilized. If someone else would have to raise their children because the cannot, the would be sterilized.
People who have committed murder or child abuse have failed at life, and more kids should not be dragged into the mess.
My morality is based on what would best serve the populace.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,350
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
What if somebody was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, then? Would you be okay with innocents also having their ability to reproduce being wrongfully taken away?
For example, lots of people sentenced to death in the US were likely innocent. And in regards to child abuse specifically, child eyewitness testimony is vulnerable to distortion, and can also get people wrongfully accused (child eyewitness can also be as reliable as adults if interviewed carefully, but the point I'm making is that mistakes have occured).
Even then, this again ignores both the possibility of a person reforming, and the present existence of organisations dedicated to overseeing child welfare.
> My morality is based on what would best serve the populace.
So you like to think. But hamfisted attempts at eugenics, and teaching that it is okay to violate people like that, won't help society in the long run.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
dw joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,351
Lol
The cat joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,357
@530,118 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Because no one ever gets wrongly convicted
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,361
@530,350 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It would probably happen sometimes. It would still help more people than it would hurt.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,363
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,377
@530,375 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Fujimori tried that in peru also. Now some human rights group is suing the goverment on behalf of mostly native impoverished women, who claim they were tricked into being sterilized.
One of the women interviewed was dirt poor, and already had 3 kids. She claimed that she no longer felt like whole woman and wanted more kids.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,379
@previous (N)
While I dont think that anyone should be tricked, she really doesnt need to be having more children. They also need to sterilize the males. Its a less invasive procedure for them.
Anonymous N replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,382
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I agree, it's not fair to trick them. They should simply offer as much money as necessary, it'll end up costing less in the long run.
The cat replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,383
less invasive does not mean non-invasive. I didn't want kids anyways (maybe adopt because why bring new kids into the world when there's orphans out there) but there is no way anyone's cutting my genitals open while I lay comatos because I will fight like a fucking animal, you'd have to kill me. Fuck forced sterilization. I am leader of the resistance, because I just invented it so yeah you'd have to deal with a lot of peeps armed to the teeth with "what the fuck is THAT?!" I ain't telling you because i'm imagining you as some kinda evil dictator (didn't the Nazis have forced sterilization) but will your army be loyal to you or will they be wanting revenge for all the fucking sterilization. Well I like you so don't sterilize peeps and I wont have to assassinate you.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,396
@530,382 (N)
Why did they sterilize so many more females than males, do you think?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,398
@530,383 (The cat)
Are you against all types of surgery?
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,399
So, what about the african war criminals who commit genocide and rape? Those niggers are indistinguishable from all other niggers.
The cat replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,400
@530,398 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
No just some like circumsision for example. Anything that's forced on someone with a few exceptions (guy's unconscious, has five bullets in him) who were you wanting to sterilize again?
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,401
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,402
@530,399 (H)
Shut up you ass! Lol
I'm reading this book about Rwanda and it's horrific. A full on genocide and there is almost no difference between the tribes.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,403
@530,361 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
And there it is. Even though lots of people are wrongly convicted, you are still willing to sterilise them. How lovely.
All I have to say on this now, is that it is good that western governments grew out of this idea.
The cat replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,406
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,407
@530,402 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
It's such a shame that they don't have oil in Rwanda, otherwise team america would have helped those niggers by fighting an unwinnable war and killing "insurgents" and drone striking for a decade before leaving the place in the hands of a puppet government that will be soon overthrown and seized by ISIS.
It's too bad, because some american companies could have made some profit from all of it.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,409
@530,403 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Mistakes happen. In the US we have a surplus of abandoned children, who are oftentimes fucked up, because theyve spent so much time in foster homes.
What we are doing isnt working.
The cat replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,410
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
That's why I'm in favour of adoption rather than bringing even MORE kids into the world - It wouldn't work because people aren't doing this. Forced steriliza
The cat double-posted this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,411
@530,409 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
God my phones being a dick. I meant to say forced sterilization wont work because people will fight to the fucking death rather than have that happen. You mentioned sterilizing the mentally ill - does an anxiety disorder count? Even though I wasn't gonna have kids and in fact CAN'T as my gf had the menopause ... sterilizing me would achieve nothing@previous (The cat)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#530,419
The cat mentioning the mentally ill thing reminded me, Buspuppie, when you said that mentally ill people should also be sterilised, was your reasoning that they would be burdens on society and require constant care?
(Edited 15 minutes later.)
dw replied with this 11 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,480
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,572
@530,419 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If they need to be.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 48 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,574
@530,411 (The cat)
I wouldn't consider that to be a major mental disorder.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ triple-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,576
@530,407 (H)
I think we should wall off the entire continent, just like containing a zombie outbreak.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,577
@530,572 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
So your objection is that they would be unfit to care for children, rather than mentally ill people being a burden on society?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,578
I also think that we should dip Mexico in plastic and turn it into a pleasure resort. I would call it Pussypussy Drug Land.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 40 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,580
@530,576 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
You fool! Then we'll be exhausted when the real thing happens!
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,581
@530,577 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Its both, but mostly because they should not be raising or producing children.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,583
@530,580 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'm being completely serious.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,585
@530,581 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
Good answer... I had a great snark lined up where I'd be like "so you think that they're wastes and burdens", and then I'd bring up how your job is caring for people who are also could also be considered burdens.
You ruined my plan, Buspuppie. :'(
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,586
When humanity is drained from the Africa wall and the zombies start their attacks in America, we'll see how good an idea it is then.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,591
@530,585 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'm good like that.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ double-posted this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#530,597
@530,586 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Africa might end up being the birthplace of the zombie virus, and by walling it off we get a head start on the quarantine.